On cost, coverage, and quality

For quite some time, policy makers have been able to point to win-win moves: increase access to health care (e.g. make insurance more affordable) and decrease costs; alternatively, increase quality of care to targeted individuals (e.g. patients with chronic conditions who frequent hospitals) and reduce costs over time. There have been some studies to support these notions. The Washington Post pointed to two recent studies that provide contrary evidence. It's too early to tell whether society can decrease costs at a large scale over the long-term while increasing coverage or quality.

It's not difficult to imagine why the idea of decreasing costs while increasing coverage and quality is attractive to policy-makers and politicians: it's almost like a free lunch. Even if the idea were true, however, there would be limits on how far those savings could extend. Beyond that point, policy-makers and politicians would need to decide what would be paid for and by whom.